Bill that requires child molesters be castrated.

[Scomagia]

I mean.. In all honesty... I'd say go for it and all...
But my moral compass is telling me to stop thinking like that.
(Can we do it to rapists too?)

Just remove legal protection from them. Problem solves itself.

And what becomes of those that have been falsely convicted or framed?

[Fartsniffage]

I mean.. In all honesty... I'd say go for it and all...
But my moral compass is telling me to stop thinking like that.
(Can we do it to rapists too?)

Just remove legal protection from them. Problem solves itself.

First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.

Then they came for the socialists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for me,
and there was no one left to speak for me.

[Gauthier]

Making child molestation a capital crime is a great way of encouraging child murders.

[Scomagia]

I mean.. In all honesty... I'd say go for it and all...
But my moral compass is telling me to stop thinking like that.
(Can we do it to rapists too?)

People can still cause sexual violence without a penis. It wouldn't stop them.

Given that sexual violence generally has little to do with sex drive and is mostly about dominance, I'm inclined to agree with you.

[Hathradic States]

Just remove legal protection from them. Problem solves itself.

And what becomes of those that have been falsely convicted or framed?

There aren't that many false convictions on this, if my memory serves.

[Freelanderness]

Making child molestation a capital crime is a great way of encouraging child murders.

It's also a great way to discourage victims from coming forward, because they would feel so much more guilt.

[Hathradic States]

Just remove legal protection from them. Problem solves itself.

First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.

Then they came for the socialists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for me,
and there was no one left to speak for me.

Aw, cute, you can quote something.

[Gauthier]

And what becomes of those that have been falsely convicted or framed?

There aren't that many false convictions on this, if my memory serves.

Ah. "Acceptable Losses".

[Hathradic States]

There aren't that many false convictions on this, if my memory serves.

Ah. "Acceptable Losses".

Aye. Acceptable losses. Either way, you have them.

[Scomagia]

And what becomes of those that have been falsely convicted or framed?

There aren't that many false convictions on this, if my memory serves.

Which is relevant how? That fact is that there ARE false convictions.

[Freelanderness]

There aren't that many false convictions on this, if my memory serves.

Ah. "Acceptable Losses".

Acceptable losses to what end... It's not like genocide where you can identify them based on their skin colour, or where they all cease to exist simply because you killed every existing one.

[Fartsniffage]

First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.

Then they came for the socialists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for me,
and there was no one left to speak for me.

Aw, cute, you can quote something.

Indeed. Unfortunately you seem to be unable to understand why I would.

Maybe when you're a little older and wiser.

[Hathradic States]

Aw, cute, you can quote something.

Indeed. Unfortunately you seem to be unable to understand why I would.

Maybe when you're a little older and wiser.

I get why you quote it, It doesn't make the right point, though. Now, if I was calling for removal of legal protection of, say, communists, then I can see that quote. However...these are criminals we are talking about. Given, they can just make up a crime, but still. The quote seemed out of place.

[United Marxist Nations]

Cruel and unusual punishment, I say.

Look, I hate child molestation as much as any half-decent human being, but castration is not a solution.

Technically, it is.

[Nyte]

That's just wrong. An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.

Then those fuckers better learn to read brail...

Truth be told, I would support this bill if certain parameters were met. Assuming,

A. it was a punishment reserved for repeat offenders, or at least for particularly heinous cases.

and B. It be purely on a case by case basis, not across the board.

As it has previously been mentioned, there are cases where "Sexual Offender" is an unjust label, and in such cases castration would be wholly inappropriate. By the same token, there are also cases where the offender deserves more than the law currently allows, and I think we should have the power to deny them the ability to be a repeat offender.

Moreover, If modern medicine is applied, castration can be a relatively painless procedure, as such, I do not believe it can be considered "cruel and unusual" in a justice system that still uses the death penalty and life imprisonment.

Indeed. Such a punishment should be reserved for a case by case basis instead of being a blanket punishment for all sex offenders.

Of course I've always believed that the current system we use to "punish" criminals with is a joke and should be far harsher. All the whining about "humane" treatment for the scum of the earth pretty much makes me sick...

[Scomagia]

Cruel and unusual punishment, I say.

Look, I hate child molestation as much as any half-decent human being, but castration is not a solution.

Technically, it is.

It's an unreasonable, emotionally based solution.

[United Marxist Nations]

Indeed. Unfortunately you seem to be unable to understand why I would.

Maybe when you're a little older and wiser.

I get why you quote it, It doesn't make the right point, though. Now, if I was calling for removal of legal protection of, say, communists, then I can see that quote. However...these are criminals we are talking about. Given, they can just make up a crime, but still. The quote seemed out of place.

I agree. You already do remove rights from criminals when you place them in the criminal justice system, what you're advocating is by no means persecution.

[Fartsniffage]

Indeed. Unfortunately you seem to be unable to understand why I would.

Maybe when you're a little older and wiser.

I get why you quote it, It doesn't make the right point, though. Now, if I was calling for removal of legal protection of, say, communists, then I can see that quote. However...these are criminals we are talking about. Given, they can just make up a crime, but still. The quote seemed out of place.

You answered your own question. Well done.

[Freelanderness]

That's just wrong. An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.

Then those fuckers better learn to read brail...

Truth be told, I would support this bill if certain parameters were met. Assuming,

A. it was a punishment reserved for repeat offenders, or at least for particularly heinous cases.

and B. It be purely on a case by case basis, not across the board.

As it has previously been mentioned, there are cases where "Sexual Offender" is an unjust label, and in such cases castration would be wholly inappropriate. By the same token, there are also cases where the offender deserves more than the law currently allows, and I think we should have the power to deny them the ability to be a repeat offender.

Moreover, If modern medicine is applied, castration can be a relatively painless procedure, as such, I do not believe it can be considered "cruel and unusual" in a justice system that still uses the death penalty and life imprisonment.

Indeed. Such a punishment should be reserved for a case by case basis instead of being a blanket punishment for all sex offenders.

Of course I've always believed that the current system we use to "punish" criminals with is a joke and should be far harsher. All the whining about "humane" treatment for the scum of the earth pretty much makes me sick...

Give me evidence that harsher penalties lead to less criminal activity, and I'll buy it.

[United Marxist Nations]

Technically, it is.

It's an unreasonable, emotionally based solution.

I don't see how it's any more unreasonable or emotionally-based than imprisonment.

[Scomagia]

That's just wrong. An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.

Then those fuckers better learn to read brail...

Truth be told, I would support this bill if certain parameters were met. Assuming,

A. it was a punishment reserved for repeat offenders, or at least for particularly heinous cases.

and B. It be purely on a case by case basis, not across the board.

As it has previously been mentioned, there are cases where "Sexual Offender" is an unjust label, and in such cases castration would be wholly inappropriate. By the same token, there are also cases where the offender deserves more than the law currently allows, and I think we should have the power to deny them the ability to be a repeat offender.

Moreover, If modern medicine is applied, castration can be a relatively painless procedure, as such, I do not believe it can be considered "cruel and unusual" in a justice system that still uses the death penalty and life imprisonment.

Indeed. Such a punishment should be reserved for a case by case basis instead of being a blanket punishment for all sex offenders.

Of course I've always believed that the current system we use to "punish" criminals with is a joke and should be far harsher. All the whining about "humane" treatment for the scum of the earth pretty much makes me sick...

You may wish to read the bit about garish posts. viewtopic.php?p=16394954#p16394954

[Fartsniffage]

I get why you quote it, It doesn't make the right point, though. Now, if I was calling for removal of legal protection of, say, communists, then I can see that quote. However...these are criminals we are talking about. Given, they can just make up a crime, but still. The quote seemed out of place.

I agree. You already do remove rights from criminals when you place them in the criminal justice system, what you're advocating is by no means persecution.

Rights and legal protection are slightly different things. Losing the right to vote and own firearms is one thing, outlawry is quite another.

[Scomagia]

It's an unreasonable, emotionally based solution.

I don't see how it's any more unreasonable or emotionally-based than imprisonment.

Imprisonment without an attempt at rehabilitation is equally unreasonable.

[United Marxist Nations]

I agree. You already do remove rights from criminals when you place them in the criminal justice system, what you're advocating is by no means persecution.

Rights and legal protection are slightly different things. Losing the right to vote and own firearms is one thing, outlawry is quite another.

How are they different?

[United Marxist Nations]

I don't see how it's any more unreasonable or emotionally-based than imprisonment.

Imprisonment without an attempt at rehabilitation is equally unreasonable.

However, it is much more expensive, and has a much higher chance of failure.